“If the personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution inhibit the government's ability to govern the people, we should look to limit those guarantees.”

That doesn't sound too different from the Bush Administration way of life, does it? Good thing they aren't working together...damn Republicrat.

This don't make sense. Clinton may have been a lot of things but I don't think he was stupid enough politically speaking to say that in that way. Otherwise this must be out of context. Of course the "government" does have the right to limit "the right to bear arms". It can limit an individuals right for example of "bearing" or owning a nuclear bomb, or an operable Army tank etcetera. If Clinton said this maybe this type of limitations is what he was referring too.

Another Bush hater Mr. Smith? Perhaps you would care to back up your accusation with a fact or two. Yes clinton said that I have it on VHS. You should actually listen to what he has said, not to mention what his wife said and intended with her comunist health care plan. Limit nuclear weapons, sure they are not quite individual weapons. However, I know more then one individual with fully operational tanks, no Constitutional limits or problems there.

The Clintons loved to govern. And the sad fact is that so many people voted for these sleazeballs, and likely will again. In the Clintons world, the individual serves the State, not the reverse. How do people like this get into elected office? Note to the Federal Government: Remember what started the First American Revolution, and constantly endeavor to prevent the need for a Second.

This from a man who "took the oath" to support and defend the constitution. The current administration also believes in this philosophy, which is why Bush and Clinton are buddies. They both want to make us into another soviet styled state. Repugs and Demlicans are the same animal, it simply has two heads.

Only scratches the surface of the despicable state of mind of the Clintons. Wake up Bruce! You worship the most corrupt president (or politician for that mater) that this country ever had.

To govern is to control. How can power hungry politicians exercise complete control over our lives and compel our actions if we are free? Therefore, in the Fabian socialists minds, individual freedom simply cannot be allowed.

What an ass.

Clinton's arguement is based on a false premise-- If government were the actual entity that granted liberty and freedom, then he'd be perfectly accurate; however, as per the Declaration of Independance, the founder's of this nation clearly identified the source of their freedom-- These founders had looked through the annals of time to see that governments that were based on the philsophy where rights and freedoms were given BY the "government" quickly turned to anarchy and tyranny. The only other option they could possibly see was an appeal to the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" because all men are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights", these being life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (property). It was God who gave rights, and government who were to protect these rights--- no matter how you look at it, government cannot revoke what the Creator has given and still be true to its trust-- especially in our Republican form of government.

In life all men do and say things they regret. History will tell a story of some and what it tells will depend on what light they are cast. Unfortunately it usually is their worst (act). I am no Clinton supporter although I did vote for him based on issues like welfare reform to which he did make some effort but his legacy for most will be (including me) "the President who lied under oath" and in so doing damaged the executive office immeasurably. Today I see more bile being spewed at public officials then ever and society seems to be embracing it and that is a tragedy in itself, but I also see more corruption in our government than I ever remember (there has always been) I can only surmise the two are related. Is it time to elect an independent? It's probably past time. The American people possess more power than they realize but we wont come together for the greater good because we have become a nation of persons and not a people willing to sacrifice a little individual preferences to serve our communities as a whole. "why has civility been banished"

This moronic comment is not about Liberty, which is the purpose of this blog, it's about tyranny.

It's chilling to think that about 50% of America wants more of that.

Editor - what were you thinking - at last we all are 100% in agreement.

I am afraid that this sentiment is and has been prevalent on both sides of the aisle as well as in the Oval Office for decades. At this point in time, the only person I would trust in that seat would be Ron Paul as he is the only candidate that has promised publically to uphold the Constitution. The fact that the others dare not make that promise is enough to warrant their exclusion from office, now and forever.

Bill Clinton and W have been friends for some time. Vacations, dinners, etc together. Neither is fit to govern or for that matter to even live outside prison walls. The idea that what our forefathers fought and died for (liberty) should be restricted in any measure is reprehensible. Clinton should have been impeached for those words as they are a de facto act of treason. But then, when considering the makeup of the Congress I understand why no impeachment was forthcoming!

Bill Clinton was one of the most courageous politicians ever to be in the White House. And still is. To stand on the world stage with what his politcal enemies put him through takes courage. Regardless of whether or not he deserves the ridicule he gets, he faces it courageously and with aplomb. What he is saying in this matter is if the "Inalienable right to bear arms" is interpreted to mean Uzi's and Street Sweepers (a shot gun that fires like ten shells at the same time), nuclear weapons, and weapons of mass destruction, maybe we need to limit this inalienable right. He was courageous when he said "I am the only President to stand up too the NRA while in office." This was a swipe at the facillating ass kisser Bush the First who did nothing when he could about guns in the streets but mouthed off about it after he left office

Bill was an absolute coward. That is why he did nothing with Osama when he had the chance. The only thing he did was NAFTA and no one knows for sure if the good out weighs the bad on that one. We do inhibit the right to bear arms. You didn't name one legal weapon did you? He was only willing to use the military when it meant nothing to the U.S. If it was important he refused to do anything. How any one could support or even like that scum bucket is beyond reason.

Robin Williams called William Jefferson Clinton a humanatarian. I don't think a higher accoalde could be given. The best thing he did was raise taxes, balance the budget and start to pay down the national debt. Bush lowered taxes and sold bonds. The war is being fought by men and women from lower income families while the rich bought 5% bonds with their tax cut and are collecting a nice war dividend. Thanks to Reagan and the two Bushes (Bush The First and Bush The Worst) our government is in 8 trillion dollars of debt. One trillion we owe to the Chineese. When Clinton left office the debt was approx. 3 trillion on going down. If you are going to take this country to war at least have the courage to ask us to pay for it. Warren how did you like the war in Kosovo?

No surprise. This is how 21st century pols think. The only thing they are terrified of is The Mob. Let there be street demonstrations about any issue and the pols run scared, eventually bowing. Bring on the mob! Watch 'em gulp and swallow and sweat. How do I know that? Because both parties are falling over each other to get a national health plan in place...thereby, caving in to the mob.

Clinton would do anything he thought possible to increase his power and limit ours. Unfortunately, there are millions of "Americans" that believe the Constitution should be limited, and our rights as well. They say, that we shouldn't be allowed to have military hardware. Well, the 2nd was written so that the people could effectively OVERTHROW their government if it went bad. Can't do that with a pump shotgun now, can we? Washington said it best, and I dare any lousy liberal to claim a greater persepctive than HIS... "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

""What he is saying in this matter is if the "Inalienable right to bear arms" is interpreted to mean Uzi's and Street Sweepers (a shot gun that fires like ten shells at the same time), nuclear weapons, and weapons of mass destruction, maybe we need to limit this inalienable right. He was courageous when he said "I am the only President to stand up too the NRA while in office." "" Bruce, what an idiot. INALIENABLE means it CAN'T BE TAKEN AWAY. If you understood the context of that partial quote, you would see that GOD gave us those inalienable rights. What.... you're going to take away what HE gave?? I think you need to take another look at the foundng documents.... and what the writers MEANT when they wrote them.. Clinton was a traitor and a sleazeball.....

You Clinton lovers better get your facts straight. The only reason the budget got balanced during the Clinton administration is because of the Republican congress and its Contract With American (congress originates all spending bills). Clinton vetoed welfare reform the first time and very very reluctantly passed it the second time saying he didn't like the bill. On top of everything else, he sold missle technology to China for campaign contributions, sold pardons right and left, and he and his wife raped the White House of important artifacts that was not theirs. What a sleazeball is right.

Randy, you should get your facts straight. Street sweepers and Uzis are already regulated by the US government and in no way is the NRA suggesting that nukes should be in the hands of private citizens. Though, it sure is scary to think of ANY totalitarian government with Nuclear Weapons. Including a USA in which only the government holds the power of force

I will buy another gun today and another 1000 rnds of ammo

Surly USA government operatives have not only stripped me of my constitutional rights, they have stripped me of my human rights, as I am now without freedom of speech, religion, and even freedom to think, and on top of that I am not allowed my freedom to be sexually straight; please realize that all of these repressions are made possible by the veil of secrecy that hides and protects malevolent government operatives who have access to Radio Monitors. More on the subject of Radio Monitor inhibitions later.

NOBEL PEACE PRIZE FOR STATUS QUO 12/10/2009 9:59:15 AM The Norwegian Nobel Committee, I must bring to your attention that USA government has offices called Rass-Rooms for torturing and repressing civilians with Radio Monitor effects, yet Americans proudly boast of being advocates of peace and human rights, and their motto for the grand deception is “liberty and justice for all”. Surely I do not intend to project the image of a loser for America’s challenges. I am a highly educated professional, and given the attitude of Americans towards naturalized middle-eastern citizens, I have been very successful. However, I despise being tortured and repressed with Radio Monitor effects because of my national origin and because of my sexual orientation. Having explained the source of these thoughts, I would like to suggest to the Nobel Committee, and to international high authorities whom manage the affairs of this world, that we civilians can enjoy a little more righteousness from our respectful leaders, as building a lawless coalition for self preservation is always self defeating. Recalling President Obama as he received the prestigious Nobel Peace prize; he stressed his vision for subduing evil nations with “war, but with proper rules of conduct”, and he rejected “torture and other methods of violence”. President Obama scorned several African nations that brutalize their citizens, and he encouraged all nations to “reach for the world that ought to be”, and strive for peace instead of war. Obviously these are great thoughts of insincerity as torture and repression of civilians with Radio Monitor effects is the true form of governance in USA, and existence of Rass-Rooms with access to international Radio Monitoring Systems is proof for dispute. Certainly prizes are sometimes given for encouragement, not as rewards. Surely the vision to subdue evil governments and putting an end to torture is brilliant, and scorning brutalization of civilians is praise worthy. However today’s reality and the vision of Shangri-La are in total contrast. One can easily see government brutality against civilians in a continuum stretching from countries with the best of reputations for observance of human rights, to countries that are famous for barbarism, and to those that are dubbed proliferators of terrorism. Yet all these countries are operated on an interconnected network of Radio Monitoring Systems, and all their governments have self preservation in common. Surely governing bodies that truly work for their nations are yet to be established. As humanity is still in doubt, true democracy will manifest with the arrival of Lord Jesus, however for now we civilians are at the mercy of our compassionate leaders and rulers. Today as civilians of the world struggle to support the great expectations of their leaders and rulers, and as the historic words of President John F. Kennedy “ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country” rings louder than ever; it is time to take a glance at the civilian world for answers, as the decision makers on lofty government rings seem too preoccupied with interaction amongst themselves. Now it has been decades since the invention of Radio Monitoring Systems, and it has been that long since governing bodies have been using these contrivances to repress civilians; it should now be clear to all that polarization against civilians is not the way to make this world more pleasant and livable, not even for the individuals on the inner most and highest of government rings. Surely the answer to this predicament is simple; it is possible to use Radio Monitoring Systems in order to collectively and democratically - instead of selectively - improve the state of existence of every human on Earth. With Radio Monitor effects, it is possible to subdue the criminal and the terrorist; it is possible to improve the condition of the ailing; it is possible to stimulate the dumbfounded; it is possible to help the non-productive to become a contributor, as collective productivity is the solution to better existence. Today with Radio Monitoring Systems it is possible to improve human existence for the short journey and not cause so much pain and suffering for the selfish. Let us not be too excited for prizes and gifts now, as there is not much to celebrate with status quo. Sincerely, Kazem Modarres-Fathi bizroute@yahoo.com Pensacola, Florida, USA

Well, I think Mr. Kazem should seek the help of a good psychiatrist. As for the quote - well, it's certainly out of context, isn't it?

What is the source? Where and when did he say it? Where is the transcript or recording?

Bill Clinton — SCREAM!!